SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
T.S. THAKUR, CJI., R. BANUMATHI, J.
Ajay Kumar Singh – Appellant
Versus
The Flag Officer Commanding-in-chief & Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 325 of 2012
With
Dhirendra Kumar Singh - Appellant
Versus
The Chief of The Naval Staff, Indian Navy & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. …..… of 2016 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 8037-8038 of 2012)
And
Umesh Kumar Singh - Appellant
Versus
The Flag Officer Commanding-in-chief & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 471-472 of 2013
Decided On : 13-07-2016
(b) Criminal trial – Fingerprints – Photographer not examined – Negatives of the photographs not produced – Not fatal to prosecution case. (Para 17)
(c) Criminal trial – Incriminating circumstance – Appellant depositing huge amount of money in his bank account at his native place after the robbery – Not explaining source of money – Becomes incriminating circumstance against the appellant. (Para 18)
(d) Service law – Disciplinary proceedings – Acquittal in criminal proceeding – Does not debar employer from taking action in accordance with Rules – Acquittal in criminal case does not entitle a person to automatic reinstatement, unless honourably acquitted – Instantly, appellant acquitted giving benefit of doubt – Not entitled to reinstatement. (Para 21, 22, 23)
(2005) 7 SCC 764; (2006) 2 SCC 255; (1997) 4 SCC 385 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
Appellant-Ajay Kumar Singh (AK Singh), Ex-Seaman, First Class and Umesh Kumar Singh (UK Singh), Ex-Radio Operator (Special), First Class and Appellant Dhirendra Kumar Singh (DK Singh), Ex-Leading Seaman, Physical Trainer, Second Class were tried by Naval Court Martial in connection with robbery at Andhra Bank Extension Counter at INS Virbahu.
The Court Martial found the appellants guilty of various charges and sentenced them to undergo various imprisonments. Additionally, all three appellants were imposed punishment of dismissal with disgrace and to suffer such other consequential penalties involved. The appellants preferred statutory appeals before the Chief of the Naval Staff in accordance with Section 162 of Navy Act 1957. The Chief of Naval Staff confirmed the conviction of the appellants and reduced the imprisonment and maintained dismissal of the appellants with disgrace from the naval service. Dhirendra Kumar Singh (DK Singh) was acquitted by Tribunal.
Finding of the Court:
Conviction of Ajay Kumar Singh (AK Singh) and Umesh Kumar Singh (UK Singh) is justified and DK Singh is not entitled to reinstatement.
Result: All appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
R. Banumathi, J.
Delay condoned and leave granted in SLP (Crl.) No. 8037-8038 of 2012.
2. Appellant-Ajay Kumar Singh (AK Singh), Ex-Seaman, First Class (appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 325 of 2012) and Umesh Kumar Singh (UK Singh), Ex-Radio Operator (Special), First Class (appellant in Criminal Appeals No.471-472 of 2013) have assailed the judgments of Armed Forces Tribunal, Chennai in T.A. No.139 of 2010 dated 11.11.2010 and T.A. No.11 of 2011 dated 05.01.2012 and order dated 17.02.2012 passed in Review Petition No.2 of 2012 in and by which the tribunal affirmed the conviction of the appellants under Sections 342 and 392 IPC read with Section 77(2) of the Navy Act, 1957 and modified the sentence of imprisonment to that of the period already undergone by them. Appellant Dhirendra Kumar Singh (DK Singh), Ex-Leading Seaman, Physical Trainer, Second Class who was acquitted by the tribunal with pensionary benefits, has preferred separate appeals seeking direction for reinstatement and other monetary benefits. These criminal appeals though assail separate judgments of Armed Forces Tribunal, Chennai, as the appeals arise out of the same bank robbery incident, all the appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.
3. Brief facts which led to filing of these appeals are as follows: Mr. N.K. Marwaha, Branch Manager of Andhra Bank, Extension Counter, situated at Utility Complex, INS Virbahu filed a complaint on 04.06.1998 at Malkapuram Police Station alleging that at about 7.20 p.m. while settling the accounts for the day along with Nallamuthu Dass, the cashier, noticed two persons entered the bank stating that they wanted to open a bank account and the third person entered after them. Of three persons, two were armed with two countrymade pistols, a khukri and an iron rod and they together threatened the manager and cashier to open iron safe. Manager-Marwaha and cashier opened the iron chest and the culprits removed Rs.2,54,376/- from the cash tray of the iron safe and kept the same in the blue colour rexin bag which they were carrying. They removed the money, the three persons locked the manager and the cashier inside the strong room of the bank before escaping in a metallic blue Bajaj Chetak scooter alongwith the blue colour cash bag. During the commission of the offence, the culprits were concealing their identity by wearing helmets with visors and masks. After forcing open strong room where they had been locked, the manager filed a complaint on 04.06.1998 before Malkapuram Police Station based on which first information report was registered in Crime No.34 of 1998 under Sections 392 and 342 IPC read with Section 25 (1-A) of the Arms Act. The Naval Police had taken over the investigation; but they were unable to make headway into identity of the accused persons despite recovery of the scooter and other articles on 23.07.1998. The investigation was then handed over to the civil police. After further investigation, civil police arrested appellants AK Singh and UK Singh on 30.07.1998. Appellant DK Singh was arrested at Howrah Railway Station on 24.07.1998 and thereafter brought to Visakhapatnam on 28.07.1998. On 30.07.1998 all three persons were remanded to custody in central jail, Visakhapatnam. Based on the statement of the accused persons, certain recoveries were made. On 17.08.1998, identification parade was conducted and PWs 14 and 18 identified the appellants.
4. The Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam vide letter dated 28.10.1998 advised the Flag Officer, Commanding-in-Chief, Eastern Naval Command, Visakhapatnam to try the accused persons by Court Martial. Therefore, the appellants were transferred to naval custody under the provisions of Section 475 Cr.P.C. read with Criminal Courts and Court Martial (Adjustment of Jurisdiction) Rules, 1978 and the matter was investigated afresh by the Co
Ajit Kumar Nag v. General Manager (PJ), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Haldia
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.